Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
189121
July 31, 2013
AMELIA GARCIA-QUIAZON, JENNETH QUIAZON and MARIA JENNIFER
QUIAZON
vs.
MA. LOURDES BELEN, for and in behalf of MARIA LOURDES ELISE QUIAZON
__________________________________________
PEREZ, J.:
FACTS: Maria Lourdes Elise Quiazon (Elise), represented by her mother, Ma.
Lourdes Belen (Lourdes), filed a Petition for Letters of Administration before the RTC
of Las Pias City. Elise claims that she is the natural child of Eliseo having been
conceived and born at the time when her parents were both capacitated to marry
each other. Elise impugned the validity of Eliseos marriage to Amelia Quizaon by
claiming that it was bigamous for having been contracted during the subsistence of
the latters marriage with one Filipito Sandico. To prove her filiation to the decedent,
Elise attached to the Petition for Letters of Administration her Certificate of Live
Birth signed by Eliseo as her father. It was alleged that Eliseo left real properties
worth P2,040,000 and personal properties worth P2,100,000. In order to preserve
the estate of Eliseo and to prevent the dissipation of its value, Elise sought her
appointment as administratrix of her late fathers estate.
Claiming that the venue of the petition was improperly laid, Amelia, with her
children, Jenneth and Jennifer, opposed the issuance of the letters of administration
by filing an Opposition/Motion to Dismiss. The petitioners asserted that as shown by
his Death Certificate, Eliseo was a resident of Capas, Tarlac and not of Las Pias
City, at the time of his death. Pursuant to Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of
Court, the petition for settlement of decedents estate should have been filed in
Capas, Tarlac and not in Las Pias City. In addition to their claim of improper venue,
the petitioners averred that there are no factual and legal bases for Elise to be
appointed administratix of Eliseos estate.
The RTC directed the issuance of Letters of Administration to Elise upon posting the
necessary bond. The lower court ruled that the venue of the petition was properly
laid in Las Pias City, thereby discrediting the position taken by the petitioners that
Eliseos last residence was in Capas, Tarlac, as hearsay.
On appeal, the decision of the trial court was affirmed in toto by the CA and held
that Elise was able to prove that Eliseo and Lourdes lived together as husband and
wife by establishing a common residence in Las Pias City, from 1975 up to the time
of Eliseos death in 1992. For purposes of fixing the venue of the settlement of
Eliseos estate, CA upheld the conclusion reached by the RTC that the decedent was
a resident of Las Pias City. The petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was denied
by the CA. Hence, this petition.
ISSUES:
I. Whether or not Eliseo Quiazon was a resident of Las Pias and therefore, the
petition for Letter's of Administration was properly filed with the RTC of Las Pias.
(YES) ; and
II. Whether or not Elise Quiazon has not shown any interest in the petition for
Upon the other hand, Section 2 of Rule 79 provides that a petition for Letters of
Administration must be filed by an interested person, thus:
Sec. 2. Contents of petition for letters of administration. A petition for letters of
administration must be filed by an interested person and must show, so far as known
to the petitioner:
(a) The jurisdictional facts;
(b) The names, ages, and residences of the heirs, and the names and residences of
the creditors, of the decedent;
(c) The probable value and character of the property of the estate;
(d) The name of the person for whom letters of administration are prayed.
But no defect in the petition shall render void the issuance of letters of administration.